Try the political quiz

21.1k Replies

@9L6NZC6Republican from Texas answered…1yr

Yes, if it is of immediate concern. It takes Congress too long to decide anything.

@9L49SXQDemocrat from Arizona answered…1yr

@9L49MNLConstitution from Ohio answered…1yr

It depends on the situation and what he wants to do specifically

@9L42ZMMAmerican Solidarity from Texas answered…1yr

@9L3SK4FRepublican from California answered…1yr

Yes, but, via the War Powers Resolution Act (1973), the President must notify Congress 48 hours before military action and must get permission from Congress after 60 days.

@9L3MXSHSocialist from Colorado answered…1yr

Yes, if the congress is taking to long to make a decision, however, the president must be shown to be an intelligent and tacit military leader.

@9L3HJDKConstitution from Missouri answered…1yr

@9L3DF5KRepublican from North Carolina answered…1yr

Congress should approve the decision, but have America's safety at heart, not partisan politics

@9L32R8NConstitution from Missouri answered…1yr

@9L2SH9KConstitution from Kansas answered…1yr

Emergency situations need immediate response and doesnt not permit time for Congress to approve. Well planned strategic attack should be approved by congress

@9L2B75DVeteran from Minnesota answered…1yr

Only if credible intelligence is available for an imminent attack on US soil

@9KZLMCYLibertarian from Texas answered…1yr

Should be limited in scope and duration. More requires congress

@9KZJ6JDWorking Family from Washington answered…1yr

no, but congress should have to answer within a certain amount of time to ensure that things get done

@9KYTHCPWomen’s Equality from Indiana answered…1yr

No, unless they show hostility or they cannot be taken peacefully

@9KYPSGSWorking Family from Colorado answered…1yr

@9KYNP7SAmerican Solidarity from Indiana answered…1yr

@9KY8FN8Peace and Freedom from Arizona answered…1yr

no with his mental capacity he's not gonna have a plan b and is gonna get us all killed.

@9KY6KCHConstitution from California answered…1yr

Yes, only when there is substantial evidence of a terrorist attack plan against the United States or our allies.

@9KXZRFNIndependent from Rhode Island answered…1yr

@9KW469FLibertarian from New Jersey answered…1yr

Al-Qaeda and other terrorist factions are not legitimate countries and governments, so the president should have the authority to launch strikes against them so long as it doesn't bring other opposition country to get involved. I believe that congress is to slow to act against a highly mobile individual, making the need for the president to have the authority to authorize a strike necessary. Unless the president is ordering a strike that will lead to a prolonged war with a foreign power, I believe that the president should have restricted power to use the military against a illegitimate government.

@9KW3WXWConstitution from Arizona answered…1yr

If it involves going to war with an actual country, then no. Congress needs to approve that. If it’s going after very specific groups, then yes.

@9KVYC6BLibertarian from Michigan answered…1yr

Military should decide what needs to be done if they are deployed in a terrorist location

@9KVWKBBConstitution from Missouri answered…1yr

I think I do not have enough information to answer this question

@9KVHLZGRepublican from Texas answered…1yr

Yes, but a meeting about it or getting others council would be nice.

@9KVFMC9Republican from Kansas answered…1yr

@9KVCR2NLibertarian from North Carolina answered…1yr

It depends. If it is internal, then most certainly so. If i is external it should require the use of congress.

@9KV9YZ9Women’s Equality from Tennessee answered…1yr

Yes, but maybe not a president that handles out of the belly.

@9KV5ZMZDemocrat from Maryland answered…1yr

Yes, but Congress should be informed of the actions and have oversight of too much force use.

@9KTG9HFConstitution from Virginia answered…1yr

@9KT2XDRIndependent from Hawaii answered…1yr

I believe the president should be able to make that decision if there is only a limited amount of time to decide, but congress should vote otherwise.

@dpol1030Constitution from New Jersey answered…1yr

Yes, but with a select few trusted members of the House and Senate whom are trusted not to leak any top secret intelligence.

@9KSTYVHGreen from Minnesota answered…1yr

Yes, the president should be allowed to defend against organizations that threaten the U.S.A, but they can't declare war or attack first.

@9KSJD4NRepublican from Florida answered…1yr

yes yes yes they will know were coming and have time to move the people they kill are horrible people and why is this even consider

@9KRTLWPConstitution from New Jersey answered…1yr

Yes, But only if they did something first and we needed to act on it right away.

@9KRTHXJConstitution from Connecticut answered…1yr

Yes and no because what if he does something horrible for the country.

@9KRDSC2Republican from California answered…1yr

If the situation requires a very quick reaction and if time is spent waiting for approval lives could be lost then yes.

@9KR2HTLVeteran from New Jersey answered…1yr

If the situation permits and congress is deadlocked, then it is acceptable

@9KQVCXTIndependent from Virginia answered…1yr

The president is the commander in chief, so he should be able to do that.

@9KQH2C4Republican from Minnesota answered…1yr


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...